tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post115137593108751320..comments2016-11-30T20:44:36.586-07:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Killing/Capturing TerroristsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151496181722161822006-06-28T06:03:00.000-06:002006-06-28T06:03:00.000-06:00chrisAll of the charges against these so-called "t...<B>chris</B><BR/><BR/>All of the charges against these so-called "terrorists" are conspiracy charges. It is recognized in law that law enforcement officials do not need to wait until a crime is committed to act against those criminals. They do not need to wait, for example, until Person A kills Person B to interfere. They only need to have enough evidence to show an intent to kill -- that a person is a genuine threat to others -- to act.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the government's case is that in negotiating with somebody they believed was an Al Queida representative to become a terrorist cell that they have stepped over the line that allows the government to identify them as a threat to others and to take action.<BR/><BR/>I will leave it up to a court of law to decide if the government has enough evidence to prove conspirasy. This is one of the things that I like about courts of law -- somebody actually has to prove the accused worthy of punishment before punishing them.<BR/><BR/>This is in stark contrast to a system wherein suspicion alone justifies a death sentence -- an intent to kill the accused (without trial or a need to show one actually has proof of guilty) and a willingness to kill any innocent person who happens to be nearby.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151495721807972202006-06-28T05:55:00.000-06:002006-06-28T05:55:00.000-06:00eneaszYour question is a common point of discussio...<B>eneasz</B><BR/><BR/>Your question is a common point of discussion in moral theory. I will seek to answer it in a post in a few days -- explaining how desire utilitarianism addresses this issue. Please stand by.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151495644595470982006-06-28T05:54:00.000-06:002006-06-28T05:54:00.000-06:00bryanI am substantially in agreement with your cla...<B>bryan</B><BR/><BR/>I am substantially in agreement with your claim. There is no "war on terror" -- at least in any sense in which war would be morally justifiable. War is legitimate only when others are using violence to threaten one's own institution and goverment -- when there is a real threat to wipe out or to conquer our nation. No such threat exists. No such cause for war exists.<BR/><BR/>The claim of a "war on terror" is political rhetoric used by those in power to maintain power. It is a tool for manipulating votes -- a tool that ignores fundamental principles of right and wrong used by those who are more interested in power than in principle.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151443414590682662006-06-27T15:23:00.000-06:002006-06-27T15:23:00.000-06:00I'm going to diverge a little from your point here...I'm going to diverge a little from your point here, if I may...<BR/><I>(Actually, the group had no explosive and had made no plans to blow up any target, but had expressed an interest in doing so to an informant posing as a member of Al Queida.)</I><BR/>If that is true, doesn't it mean that they haven't committed any crime other than thought crime? They're not even in illegal possession of a weapon.<BR/><BR/>They've made no attacks, have no weapons and no specific plans to attack anything. What exactly could they be charged with, if the administration wanted to pretend they still respected the rule of law?Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151425211493486392006-06-27T10:20:00.000-06:002006-06-27T10:20:00.000-06:00I'm curious, you say someone "would not even have ...I'm curious, you say someone "would not even have the right to kill his neighbor’s child to save his whole family." How far does this extend? If, by murdering one child, you could prevent the deaths of one thousand, would it be immoral to do so? Could one not argue that by NOT killing that one child, you have sentenced 1000 to death and are guilty of a crime 1000 times worse?Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1151393909692234852006-06-27T01:38:00.000-06:002006-06-27T01:38:00.000-06:00Framing our current struggle with Al Queda as a "W...Framing our current struggle with Al Queda as a "War on Terror", instead of the police action that it should be classified as, allows Americans to cross the line on these moral questions much more easily. War can be construed as Good vs. Evil where epic battles occur and morality doesn’t come into play. When you are in a war it’s our side against theirs. On the battlefield you don’t have time to determine if the person you are shooting at has actually done you any harm. His just being on the other side takes that requirement away. You can say that since he is evil, he will do me harm, so I am only doing good by killing him first. <BR/><BR/>It’s really not a surprise that in the current struggles there have been almost no engagements that would resemble wars of the past. No Battle of the Bulge or Gettysburg. It’s almost never possible for American soldiers to kill someone in Iraq and immediately be sure they’ve killed a member of Al Queda and not an innocent Iraqi.Bryannoreply@blogger.com